Advertisement

Declarations as Subsequent Practice and as Aid in the Judicial Interpretation of the Charter

  • Obed Y. Asamoah

Abstract

We have discussed in some detail the powers of interpretation of the Charter which the Assembly and other organs of the United Nations possess. Questions concerning the interpretation of the Charter come before the International Court of Justice in which the practices of the Assembly and other organs are important.

Keywords

Supra Note Security Council Vote Procedure Judicial Interpretation United States Supreme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    (1949) I.C.J. Rep. 174.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    (1950) I.C.J. Rep. 4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    (1962) I.C.J. Rep. 151.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    (1950) I.C.J. Rep. 124.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitzmaurice, “Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–4,” 33 Brit. Tb. Int’l L. 225 (1957). As explained by him one is talking here of a revision brought about by practice or conduct rather than affected by and recorded in writing. Agreements can result from conduct. He continues to say that looked at this way a legitimate place can be found for the doctrine of emergent purpose, i.e., an “extreme and dynamic form of the teleological approach, according to which the notion of object or purpose is itself not a fixed and static one, but is liable to change, or rather develop as experience is gained in the operation and working of the Convention.” Id., at 208. The Convention is then to be interpreted not according to what the object was when entered into but what it has since become. There is some analogy, he says, with the development of constitutions by pronouncement of the Courts. See Dissenting Opinion of Winiarski in Certain Expenses of the United Nations case, (1962) I.C.J. Rep. 230-231.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    (1962) I.C.J. Rep. 187.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenks, The Prospects of International Adjudication 461–496 (1964).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    (1955) I.C.J. Rep. 122.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    252 U.S. 416.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jenks, op. cit. supra note 7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Id., at 461-480.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Competence to Regulate Incidentally, the Personal Work of the Employer case, P.C.I. J. Series B, No. 13 (1926). See also Jenks, Id., at 470-472.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See, e.g., Competence in Respect of Conditions of Agricultural Labour case, P.C.I. J., Series B, Nos. 2 and 3 (1922). See also, Jenks, Id., at 464.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations case, op. cit. supra note 71.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Competence of ILO to Regulate, Incidentally, the Personal Work of the Employer, P.C.I. J. Series B., No. 13, at 20 (1926).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Interpretation of Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq) P.C.LJ. Series B., No. 12, (1925).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Obed Y. Asamoah

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations